Tag Archives: practices

Pharma Governance Maladies and Corporate Leadership

Posted on by
Reply

On September 26, 2017, two media headlines related to the Indian pharma industry, possibly made many wonder – Are these some of the key reasons prompting the Government to enforce stringent and costly regulations in this sector?

Above revelations came close on the heel of a series of alleged fraudulent, collusive and even criminal behavior of many domestic pharma players, by several overseas regulators, including the US-FDA. Besides international media, similar reports often featured in the national business dailies too. Most of these allegations are related to pharma marketing practices, and drug quality related concerns. In that sense, the core issues of following two news items are no different, and were reported as follows:

  • “The income tax (IT) investigation wing claims to have unearthed a nexus between a leading pharmaceutical company and doctors, and evidence showing payments running into Crores to the latter for prescribing the company’s medicines.”
  • Reaching out to Niti Aayog, Indian drug industry lobby groups, “mainly objected to three proposals in the draft policy floated last month: one drug one brand, curbing retailer margins, and mandatory bioavailability and bioequivalence (BA/BE) test for all drugs approved by state regulators and also future renewals.”

Out of these, the objection to mandatory BA/BE tests appears more intriguing to me – for two reasons. First, the news report doesn’t mention the participation of any global pharma company or their lobby groups in this meeting. If true, it would possibly mean, the pharma MNC players operating in India aren’t unduly worried about BA/BE requirements, which are mandatory in other countries of the world, primarily to ensure high generic drug quality standards.

The second one being, when the Indian pharma industry is so vocal on ‘poor quality’ of generic drugs sans brand names, apparently to protect branded generics, why is its lobby groups opposing mandatory BA/BE tests – so critical to address the quality issue. Opposing these tests, citing some ‘reason’, appears absurd. Resolving safety concerns on ‘Unbranded’ generics is nonnegotiable – for patients’ health and safety.

The major incident that snowballed:

It reminds me of the major US-FDA related quality issue involving Ranbaxy of India that eventually snowballed, attracting global media attention. This incident was well covered by Indian Press and Television, as well. As one such business daily reported, the much talked about whistleblower Dinesh Thakur, reportedly claimed that his boss in Ranbaxy made a detailed presentation of the alleged widespread manufacturing lapses and fudging of data in the company first to “a closed-door board of directors meeting in Thailand” in September 2004, and then to its science committee on December 21, 2004. Be that as it may, Ranbaxy subsequently pleaded guilty to several charges by the US-FDA, based on Dinesh Thakur’s testimony, and paid a hefty fine of US$ 550 million. It is worth noting, although Ranbaxy had an immaculate Board of Directors at that time, including distinguished and eminent personalities as the Independent Directors, the company used to be run by the promoters, or in other words, the key shareholders of the company. It may be coincidental that the majority of such incidences reported from India, either related to dubious pharma marketing practices or drug quality standard, may find a curious link with the promoter or the key shareholder driven domestic pharma companies.

The purpose of this article is not to assign blame to anyone, or any organization, but to have an intimate look at the governance process of most of such companies, which is systemic in nature. It may be worth pondering thereafter, whether one can learn the way forward from the credible research reports, available on this important subject.

The doctrine of ‘Maximizing Shareholder Value’:

In many corporate training sessions, especially for the senior management, including pharma industry in India, the above well-known doctrine is emphasized and reemphasized – again and again. It postulates, the ‘corporate managers should make maximizing shareholder value their goal – and that boards should ensure that they do.’

Indian pharma companies predominately being the promoter or the key shareholder driven corporations, choosing ‘maximizing shareholder value’ as the primary corporate mission, I reckon, is not too uncommon, either.

The basic premises of the theory:

The details of this theory were articulated in the 1976 Journal of Financial Economics article “Theory of the Firm,” by Michael Jensen and William Meckling. The concept was further deliberated in the article titled “The Error at the Heart of Corporate Leadership” by Joseph L. Bower and Lynn S. Paine, published in the May-June 2017 issue of Harvard Business Review, and its basic premises were summarized as follows:

  • Shareholders own the corporation and are “principals” with the original authority to manage the corporation’s business and affairs.
  • The corporation’s shareholders delegate decision-making authority to the managers and are thus “agents” of the shareholders.
  • As agents of the shareholders, managers are obliged to conduct the corporation’s business in accordance with shareholders’ desires.
  • Shareholders want the business to be conducted in a way that maximizes their own economic returns. (The assumption that shareholders are unanimous in this objective is implicit throughout the article.)

A flawed corporate governance model?

Bower and Paine in their above paper lucidly analyze a number of serious flaws in the basic premises of ‘maximizing shareholder value’ model. For example, they indicate that the ultimate responsibility and accountability for good corporate governance, or lack of it, lies squarely with the concerned senior management and the Board of Directors of the company and none else – not even with its large shareholders.

Moreover, the authors caution that this theory’s doctrine of alignment spreads moral hazard throughout a company and narrows management’s field of vision.

Putting it in the context of Indian pharma industry, I reckon, such risks increase alarmingly, when promoters take all management and Governance decisions, with the senior management, including the Board of Directors doing no more than endorsing those, knowingly or unknowingly, just as what happened in case of Ranbaxy, mentioned above.

Providing a more realistic foundation for corporate governance:

Against this backdrop, and accepting the following ground realities, there evolves a critical need to have a more realistic foundation for corporate governance and shareholder engagement, as the above HBR article deliberates:

  • Corporations are complex organizations whose effective functioning depend on talented leaders and managers.
  • Corporations can prosper over the long term only if they’re able to learn, adapt, and regularly transform themselves.
  • Corporations perform many functions in society – such as providing investment opportunities and generating wealth, producing goods and services, creating employment, developing technologies, paying taxes, and making several other significant contributions to the communities in which they operate.
  • Corporations may have differing objectives and strategies in this regard – such as, what the purpose of a corporation ought to be from a societal perspective may not be quite the same as what its promoters or key shareholders believe those to be.
  • Corporations must create value for multiple constituencies – such as, companies succeed only if customers want their products, employees want to work for them, suppliers want them as partners, shareholders want to buy their stock, and communities want their presence. In contrast, the ‘creating more shareholder value’ theory’s implied decision prompts that managers should always maximize value for shareholders – oversimplifies this challenge and leads eventually to systematic underinvestment in other important relationships.
  • Corporations must have ethical standards to guide interactions with all their constituencies, including shareholders and society at large – going beyond forbearance from fraud and collusion, is essential for earning the trust companies need to function effectively over time. ‘Creating more shareholder value’ theory’s ambivalence regarding corporate ethics can set companies up for destructive and even criminal behavior -which generates a need for the costly regulations that agency theory proponents are quick to decry.

All the above eight points, especially the last one, as many consider, are so relevant for the Indian pharma industry, probably more in the promoter-driven ones, as these constitute the bulk of it. It is equally important to understand that corporations are embedded not just in a network of financial systems, but also in a political and socioeconomic matrix, whose health is vital to their sustainability. Thus, changing from ‘‘creation of more shareholder value-centered governance’ to a ‘company-centered governance’ would be more meaningful in today’s paradigm.

The merits of ‘company-centered governance’:

As the Harvard article says, following are some of the merits of changing to a ‘company-centered governance’ from ‘creating more shareholder value-centered governance:’

  • More board-level attention to succession planning and leadership development
  • More board time devoted to strategies for the company’s continuing growth and renewal
  • More attention to risk analysis and political and environmental uncertainty
  • A strategic (rather than narrowly financial) approach to resource allocation
  • A stronger focus on investments in new capabilities and innovation
  • More-conservative use of leverage as a cushion against market volatility
  • Concern with corporate citizenship and ethical issues that goes beyond legal compliance

Conclusion:

Almost all domestic pharma companies in India are currently family run, mostly by the first or second-generation entrepreneurs, with well-defined and clearly established ownership pattern.

The glorious history of the family run Indian pharma business has started facing a more challenging future, especially in addressing the types of maladies, as epitomized in the above two recent media reports. With the ongoing process of ‘creating more shareholder value’ driven governance – almost totally scripted by the promoter or the key shareholders at the helm, the task ahead remains formidable. Additionally, the reports on Ranbaxy whistleblower’s narrative, prompted many to wonder the role of Independent Directors on the Board of strong promoter driven Indian pharma companies, besides others.

In this scenario, particularly to address the Governance related maladies effectively, a highly competent corporate leadership professionals should be empowered to steer the Indian pharma organizations, in general, from ‘creation of more shareholder value centric governance’ to a well-crafted ‘company centric governance’ process, in a well-calibrated manner and sooner.

By: Tapan J. Ray 

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Marketing Practices: Why Pharma Does What It Does?

Posted on by
Reply

It started way back – spanning across many developed countries of the world. However, probably for the first time in the last five years, an international media group focused on this issue thriving in India, with so much detail.

Reuters reported it with a headline “In India, gift-giving drives drug makers’ marketing.” The report was supported by a detailed description of the relevant events, with ‘naming and shaming’. It drew the attention of some, apparently including the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP), but escaped the attention of many, and finally – got faded away with time, without any reported official investigation.

In this article, I shall revisit this subject against the backdrop of draft pharma policy 2017. My focus will be on the current marketing practices, with the moot question ‘why pharma does what it does’ occupying the center stage of this piece.

Bothering many across the world:

Pharma marketing practices wear different hues and shades. Many of these are contentious, and often perceived as gross ‘malpractices’. Nevertheless, across the world, these have mostly become an integral part of pharma business. Many law-enforcing authorities, including in the US, Europe, Japan and even China, have started taking tough penal action against those transgressions. Interestingly, the draft pharma policy 2017 intends to take this raging bull by its horn, with a multi-pronged approach, as I see it.

It’s a different debate, though, whether the policy makers should bring the mandatory Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) under the Essential Commodities Act, or the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India. Let’s wait and see what exactly transpires in scripting the final version of the new National Pharma Policy to address this issue, comprehensively.

The net impact of the fast evolving ‘newer norms’ of pharma ‘marketing’ practices, has been bothering a large section of the society, including the Governments, for quite some time. Consequently, many top-quality research studies are now being carried out to ascertain the magnitude of this problem. The top ranked pharma market in the world – the United States (US) are leading the way with such analysis. However, I haven’t come across similar India-specific analytical reports, just yet, probably due to lack of enough credible data sources.

Four recent studies:

Several interesting studies supported by a robust database have been carried out in the US during 2016 and 2017 to ascertain whether any direct relationship exists between payments in various forms made to the doctors by the pharmaceutical companies and physicians’ prescribing various drugs in brand names. For better understanding of this issue, I am quoting below, as examples, the gist of just four of such studies:

One of these studies conducted by ProPublica was published in March 2016. It found that physicians in five common medical specialties who accepted, at least one industry payment were more likely to prescribe higher rates of brand-name drugs than physicians who did not receive any payments. More interestingly, the doctors receiving larger payments had a higher brand-name prescribing rate, on an average. Additionally, the type of payment also made a difference: those who received meals alone from companies had a higher rate of brand-name prescribing than physicians receiving no payments, and those who accepted speaking payments had a higher rate of the same than those drawing other types of payments.

The details of the second study published in PLOS on May 16, 2016 states, “While distribution and amount of payments differed widely across medical specialties, for each of the 12 specialties examined the receipt of payments was associated with greater prescribing costs per patient, and greater proportion of branded medication prescribing. We cannot infer a causal relationship, but interventions aimed at those physicians receiving the most payments may present an opportunity to address prescribing costs in the US.”

The third example of such investigative study appeared in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) on August 2016. This cross-sectional analysis, which included 279,669 physicians found that “physicians who received a single meal promoting the drug of interest, with a mean value of less than $20, had significantly higher rates of prescribing rosuvastatin as compared with other statins; nebivolol as compared with other β-blockers; olmesartan as compared with other angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers; and desvenlafaxine as compared with other selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.”

This study also concluded that “Receipt of industry-sponsored meals was associated with an increased rate of prescribing the brand-name medication that was being promoted. The findings represent an association, not a cause-and-effect relationship.”

And the fourth analysis on the same subject featuring in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) of 18 August 2016 concluded that “Payments by the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals to physicians were associated with greater regional prescribing of marketed drugs among Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Payments to specialists and payments for speaker and consulting fees were predominantly associated with greater regional prescribing of marketed drugs than payments to non-specialists or payments for food and beverages, gifts, or educational materials.”

Exceptional steps by a few global CEOs – would the rest follow through?

As this juggernaut continues to move unrelenting, a few global CEOs have been taking some exceptional steps in this regard, e.g.:

- In December 2013, Sir Andrew Witty –  erstwhile global CEO of  GlaxoSmithKline tossed out the ‘Big Pharma marketing playbook’. He announced, no longer will his company pay doctors to promote its drugs or shell out bonuses to sales reps based on their ability to boost prescription numbers.

- Around September 2015, Brent Saunders – the Global CEO of Allergan was the first major drug company chief to explicitly renounce egregious price increases. Outlining his company’s “social contract with patients,” he vowed that Allergan would:

  • Limit price increases to single-digit percentages, “slightly above the current annual rate of inflation,” net of rebates and discounts
  • Limit price increases to once per year
  • Forego price increases in the run-up to patent expiration, except in the case of corresponding cost increases.

- In October 2016, Joseph Jimenez – the current global CEO of Novartis said, “We tell people, we don’t want you to deliver at any cost. We want you to deliver, but we want you to deliver in the right way,”

It’s probably a different matter, though, that one of these CEOs has already stepped down, another will do so early 2018, and third iconoclast is still in the saddle. They all are still relatively young, as compared to several of their counterparts.

These are some of the laudable steps taken by a few CEOs for their respective global operations. However, the moot question remains: would rest of the Big Pharma constituents come on board, and successfully follow these initiatives through?

That said, the overall scenario in this area, both in India and abroad, continues to remain mostly unchanged.

Why pharma does what is does?

This may not be akin to a million-dollar question, as its right answer is no-brainer – to generate more, and even more prescription demand for the respective focused brands of the concerned pharma companies. In a scenario, as we have seen above, when money can buy prescriptions with relative ease, and more money buys more prescriptions, how do the prescribers differentiate between different brands of the same molecules or combination of molecules, for greater support?

As evident from various available reports, this kind of intangible product differentiation of dubious nature, doesn’t necessarily have a linear relationship with the quantum of money spent for this purpose. Many believe, it is also intimately related to the nature or kind of various ‘gratis’ extended, some of which are highly contentious. Illustratively, how exotic is the venue of so called ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ event, whether located in India or beyond its shores, bundled with the quality of comfort provided by the event managers, or even whether the spouses can also join the doctors for a few days of a relaxed trip with fabulous sight-seeing arrangements.

Regardless of many pharma players’ terming these events as purely educational in nature, lots of questions in this regard – accompanied by proof, have reportedly been raised on the floor of the Indian Parliament, as well, cutting across virtually all political party lines.

Conclusion:

Should anyone tag the term ‘marketing’ against any such pharma business practices, or even remotely accept these as integral parts of any ‘branding exercise’? For better understanding of my readers, I had explained what this buzzword – ‘branding’ really means in the marketing vocabulary.

Be that as it may, where from the pharma companies recover the huge cost of such vexed business practices? Who ultimately pays for these – and, of course, why? So far, in India, the basic reasoning for the same used to be – branded generics provide significantly better and more predictable drug quality and efficacy than non-branded generics, for patients’ safety.

This logic is anchored mainly on the argument that bioequivalence (BE) and bioavailability (BA) studies are mandatory for all generic drug approvals in India. Interestingly, that loose knot has been tightened in the draft pharma policy proposals 2017. Hope, this commendable policy intent will ultimately see the light of the day, unless another innovative new reason pops-up.

Against this backdrop, many ponder: Are the current pharma ‘marketing’ practices, especially in India, akin to riding a tiger? If the answer is affirmative, the aftermath of the new pharma policy’s coming into force – broadly in its current form and with strict enforcement measures, could well be too tough to handle for those drug players without a Plan B ready.

That said, pharma ‘marketing’ ballgame is getting increasingly more complex, with the involvement of several third-parties, as is often reported. Alongside, it’s equally challenging to fathom ‘why pharma does what it does’ to generate more prescription demand at an incremental cost, which far exceeds commensurate incremental value that branded generics provide to patients in India.

By: Tapan J. Ray 

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Rebuilding Pharma Image: A Laudable Mindset – Lacking In Many

Posted on by
Reply

The fierce debate on ethics and compliance related issues in the pharma marketing practices still reverberates, across the globe. One of its key fallout has been ever-increasing negative consumer perception about this sector, sparing a very few companies, if at all. As a result, many key communications of the individual players, including the industry associations specifically targeted to them, are becoming less and less credible, if not ineffective.

Which is why, though pharma as an industry is innovative in offering new medicines, consumers don’t perceive it so. Despite several drug players’ taking important steps towards stakeholder engagement, consumers don’t perceive so. The list goes on and on. I discussed on such consumer perception in my article of June 26, 2017. Hence, won’t further go into that subject, here.

General allegation on the pharma industry continues to remain unchanged, such as the drug industry tries to influence the medical profession, irrespective of whether they write prescription drugs for patients or are engaged in regulatory trial related activities aimed at product marketing.

Let me give an example to illustrate the later part of it, and in the Indian context. On April 26, 2017, it was reported that responding to a joint complaint filed by Mylan and Biocon in 2016, alleging that the Roche Group indulged in “abusive conduct”, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) gave directions for carrying out a detailed investigation on the subject. This probe was initiated to ascertain, whether Roche used its dominant position to maintain its monopoly over the breast cancer drug Trastuzumab, adversely impacting its access to many patients.

Such a scenario, though, undoubtedly disturbing, is very much avoidable. Thus, winning back the fading trust of the consumers in the industry, should be ticked as a top priority by the concerned parties.

In this article, I shall mostly focus on some recent developments related to ethics and compliance issues, mainly in pharma marketing, and with a small overlap on the regulatory and other areas, as and when required to drive home a point.

It shakes the trust base on the medical profession too:

This menace, as it were, though, more intense in India, is neither confined to its shores alone, nor just to the pharma industry, notwithstanding several constituents of big pharma have been implicated in mega bribery scandals in different countries. There doesn’t seem to be much doubt, either, that its impact has apparently shaken the very base of trust even on the medical profession, in general.

Not very long ago, Dr. Samiran Nundy, while holding the positions of Chairman, Department of Surgical Gastroenterology and Organ Transplantation at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Current Medicine Research and Practice, reportedly exposed the widespread malpractices of the doctors in India who are taking cuts for referrals and prescribing unnecessary drugs, investigations and procedures for profit.

This practice continues even today, unabated. On June 18, 2017, it was widely reported in India that Maharashtra Government has decided to form a 3-member committee for suggesting effective ways to check the ‘cut practice’ of doctors. This decision followed a public awareness campaign on this subject, initiated by well-reputed late heart surgeon – Dr. Ramakanta Panda’s Asian Heart Institute, located in Mumbai. The hospital had put up a hoarding saying: ‘No commission. Only honest medical opinion’. The Indian Medical Association opposed the hoarding. But the hospital wrote to Maharashtra medical education minister seeking a legislation to fight this malpractice.

To contain this malady across India, for the sake of patients, Dr. Nundy had then suggested that to begin with, “The Medical Council of India (MCI), currently an exclusive club of doctors, has to be reconstituted. Half the members must be lay people like teachers, social workers and patient groups like the General Medical Council in Britain, where, if a doctor is found to be corrupt, he is booted out by the council.”

This subject continues to remain an open secret, just as pharma marketing malpractices, and remains mostly confined to the formation of various committees.

“Corruption ruins the doctor-patient relationship in India” – a reconfirmation:

“Corruption ruins the doctor-patient relationship in India” - highlighted an article published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on 08 May 2014. Its author – David Berger wrote, “Kickbacks and bribes oil every part of the country’s health care machinery and if India’s authorities cannot make improvements, international agencies should act.”

He reiterated, it’s a common complaint, both of the poor and the middle class, that they don’t trust their doctors from the core of hearts. They don’t consider them honest, and live in fear of having no other choice but to consult them, which results in high levels of doctor shopping. David Berger also deliberated on the widespread corruption in the pharmaceutical industry, with doctors bribed to make them prescribe specified drugs.

The article does not fail to mention that many Indian doctors do have huge expertise, are honorable and treat their patients well. However, as a group, doctors generally have a poor reputation.

Until the medical profession together with the pharma industry is prepared to tackle this malady head-on and acknowledge the corrosive effects of medical corruption, the doctor-patient relationship will continue to lie in tatters, the paper says.

Uniform code of ethical pharma marketing practices:

This brings us to the need of a uniform code of ethical pharma marketing practices. Such codes, regardless of whether voluntary or mandatory, are developed to ensure that pharma companies, either individually or collectively, indulge in ethical marketing practices, comply with all related rules and regulations, avoid predominantly self-serving goals and conflict interest with the medical profession, having an adverse impact on patients’ health interest.

This need was felt long ago. Accordingly, various pharma companies, including their trade associations, came up with their own versions of the same, for voluntary practice. As I wrote before, such codes of voluntary practice, mostly are not working. That hefty fines are being levied by the government agencies in various countries, that include who’s who of the drug industry around the world, with India being a major exception in this area, would vindicate the point.

Amid all these, probably a solitary global example of demonstrable success with the implementation of voluntary codes of ethical pharma marketing practices, framed by a trade association in a major western country of the world, now stands head and shoulders above others.

Standing head and shoulders above others:

On June 23, 2017, the international business daily – ‘Financial Times’ (FT), reported: “Drug maker Astellas sanctioned for ‘shocking’ patient safety failures”

Following ‘a series of shocking breaches of guidelines’ framed by ‘The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA)’ – an integral part of the ‘Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI)’, publicly threatened the Japanese drug major – Astellas, for a permanent expulsion from the membership of the Association. However, PMCPA ultimately decided to limit the punishment to a 12-month suspension, after the company accepted its rulings and pledged to make the necessary changes. Nevertheless, Astellas could still be expelled, if PMCPA re-audit in October do not show any “significant progress” in the flagged areas – the report clarified.

Interestingly, just in June last year, ABPI had suspended Astellas for 12 months ‘because of breaches related to an advisory board meeting and deception, including providing false information to PMCPA’. The company had also failed to provide complete prescribing information for several medicines, as required by the code – another report highlights.

Astellas is one of the world’s top 20 pharmaceutical companies by revenue with a market capitalization of more than £20bn. In 2016 its operations in Europe, the Middle East and Africa generated revenues of €2.5bn –reports the FT.

What is PMCPA?

One may be interested to fathom how seriously the implementation of the uniform code of pharmaceutical marketing practice is taken in the United Kingdom (UK), and how transparent the system is.

The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) is the self-regulatory body which administers the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry’s (ABPI) Code of Practice for the Pharmaceutical Industry, independent of the ABPI. It is a not-for-profit body, which was established by the ABPI on 1 January 1993. In other words, the PMCPA is a division of the British pharma trade association – ABPI.

According to PMCPA website, it:

  • Operates the complaints procedure under which the materials and activities of pharmaceutical companies are considered in relation to the requirements of the Code.
  • Provides advice and guidance on the Code.
  • Provides training on the Code.
  • Arranges conciliation between pharmaceutical companies when requested to do so.
  • Scrutinizes samples of advertisements and meetings to check their compliance with the Code.

As I often quote: ‘proof of the pudding is in eating’, it may not be very difficult to ascertain, how a constructive collective mindset of those who are on the governing board of a pharma trade association, can help re-creating the right image for the pharma industry, in a meaningful way.

Advertisements and public reprimands for code violations:

The PMCPA apparently follows a system to advertise in the medical and pharmaceutical press brief details of all cases where companies are ruled in breach of the Code. The concerned companies are required to issue a corrective statement or are the subject of a public reprimand.

For the current year, the PMCPA website has featured the details of three ABPI members as on May 2017, namely, Gedeon Richter, Astellas, and Gedeon Richter, for breaching the ethical code of practices.

However, in 2016, as many as 15 ABPI members featured in this list of similar violations. These are:  Vifor Pharma, Celgene, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Grünenthal Ltd, Boehringer Ingelheim Limited, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen-Cilag, Astellas, Stirling Anglian, Guerbet, Napp, Hospira, Genzyme, Bausch & Lomb and Merck Serono. It is worth noting that the names of some these major companies had appeared more than once, during that year.

I am quoting the names of those companies breaching the ABPI code, just to illustrate the level of transparency in this process. The details of previous years are available at the same website. As I said, this is probably a solitary example of demonstrable success with the implementation of voluntary practices of ethical pharma marketing codes, framed by any pharma trade association.

In conclusion:

Many international pharmaceutical trade associations, which are primarily the lobbying outfits, are known as the strong votaries of self-regulations of the uniform code of ethical pharma marketing practices, including in India. Some of them are also displaying these codes in their respective websites. However, regardless of all this, the ground reality is, the much-charted path of the well-hyped self-regulation by the industry to stop this malaise, is not working. ABPI’s case, I reckon, though laudable, may well be treated as an exception. 

In India, even the Government in power today knows it and publicly admitted the same. None other than the secretary of the Department of pharmaceuticals reportedly accepted this fact with the following words: “A voluntary code has been in place for the last few months. However, we found it very difficult to enforce it as a voluntary code. Hence, the government is planning to make it compulsory.”

Following this, as reported on March 15, 2016, in a written reply to the Lok Sabha, the Minister of State for Chemicals and Fertilizers, categorically said that the Government has decided to make the Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practice (UCPMP) mandatory to control unethical practices in the pharma industry.

The mindset that ABPI has demonstrated on voluntary implementation of their own version of UCPMP, is apparently lacking in India. Thus, to rebuild the pharma industry image in the country and winning back the trust of the society, the mandatory UCPMP with a robust enforcement machinery, I reckon, is necessary – without any further delay.

However, the sequence of events in the past on the same, trigger a critical doubt: Has the mandatory UCPMP slipped through the crack created by the self-serving interest of pharma lobbyists, including all those peripheral players whose business interests revolve round the current pharma marketing practices. Who knows?

Nonetheless, the bottom line remains: the mandatory UCPMP is yet to be enforced in India… if at all!

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Managing Pharma Investors’ Expectations When The Chips Are Down

Posted on by
Reply

Triggered by several critical factors, over a relatively short period of time, a downward spiral is visible with most Indian Pharma stocks, with a significant erosion in market capitalization of many large players in the country.

A set of important factors has been fueling this current downturn since around the last four years. These include, issues related to serious regulatory non-compliance with US-FDA and other foreign drug regulators, pricing pressure both in the domestic and the overseas markets, including the United States, delayed approval of several new generic drugs in the number-one pharma market of the world, for various reasons. Initial rollout period of GST expected to commence on July 1, 2017, may also prompt some major readjustments in the distribution setting of many pharma organizations. This has been further compounded with the wholesalers’ and retailers’ demand for compensation for any losses on input credit arising out of this critical reform.

As eroding market cap generally leads to commensurately lower market valuation of a company, it adversely impacts company’s many business growth related activities, which encompasses attracting low cost – high value investments, and M&A related activities, besides many others. Consequently, this negative swing has alarmed many investors, making them more demanding on company performance – uninterrupted, almost at any cost, as it were.

Not much headroom for necessary course correction:

Unrelenting expectations of this nature from the investors, inclusive of activist shareholders, to continue driving the business growth engine up the steep slope of ever increasing return on investment, is not expected to die down, anytime soon.

They may not be willing to leave enough headroom for the respective pharma management teams to realign their growth path with the changing and challenging needs of time, if it adversely impacts business even in the short-term. Nonetheless, if it is not allowed, the tailspin is likely to continue, as has been happening since, at least, the last couple of years, pushing the business at a dangerous level of sustainability.

Such demand of the investors and shareholders, irrespective of the gravity of the situation where their respective companies are in, may not be too uncommon, even in the global arena. However, many experts are now raising a key question in this area. In this article, I shall try to look at this issue, not just from the investors’ perspective, but also from what the concerned pharma players can and should do in this area, sooner the better.

A pertinent question needs to be addressed:

This important and relevant question is: what is the accountability of the investors, if their pressure for performance when the company is at a crossroad of this nature, causes a long-term irreparable damage to the business?

The very issue has been discussed immaculately in an article titled, “The Error at The Heart of Corporate Leadership”, published in the May-June 2017 issue of the Harvard Business Review.

The paper reiterates that attributing ownership of the corporation to its investors involves a challenging problem of accountability. This is because, ‘shareholders or private investors have no legal duty to protect or serve the companies whose shares they own and are shielded by the doctrine of limited liability from legal responsibility for those companies’ debts and misdeeds.’ Moreover, they are both physically and psychologically distant from the activities of the companies they invest in, and may generally buy and sell these shares without restrictions.

Nevertheless, such strong and ever increasing demands put the top pharma managers under increasing pressure to deliver faster and more predictable returns, regardless of the headwind that the business is facing. The issue becomes more complex when temporary-holders of large blocks of shares intervene to reconstitute a company’s board, change its management, or restructure its finances to drive up the share price, only to sell out and move on to another target, without ever having to answer for their intervention’s impact on the company or other parties, the article highlights.

Export business – the pain points:

“Pharma stocks take a beating on renewed US FDA scrutiny” – flashed the headline of a recent media report of June 12, 2017. As I see it, in the export business, especially in the top pharma market in the world, there appears to be a strong possibility of further worsening the business environment, especially for the Indian drug exporters.

Wave after wave of US-FDA import bans involving many India made drug formulations and Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API), since over last four years, have significantly affected the short-term export sales of the domestic pharma exporters. Alongside, these have seriously dented the image of the Indian pharma players, collectively, which encompasses the critical area of regulatory compliance – to offer well-documented safe and effective drugs, as required by the regulator, for the patients in the United States.

The situation gets messier with media headlines, such as, one from Bloomberg’s on January 24, 2017, conveying to the world community – “Document Shredding at Night Raises FDA Eyebrows During India Visit.”

Besides current drug pricing pressure, President Donald Trump’s election pledge for local manufacturing of products consumed in the United States, for more job creation in the country, sends another possible storm signal in this area. This is serious too, as Indian generic drug producers cater to around 40 percent of the total generic drug consumption in America.

Overcoming the odds in export business:

While taking corrective and effective measures for a sustainable long-term business performance, doing the same things more intensely that precipitated the current crisis, would be counterproductive.

Improving the situation, would also call for a strong preparedness for launching new generic products at a regular interval. However, in tandem, there is a crying need for the concerned pharma companies to take a pause, and conclude, a well-structured and expert-guided corporate introspection and brainstorming process, on priority. This will help them to arrive at a set of actionable strategic plans to effectively address each of the pain points, in a meticulous and time-bound manner.

Investors must necessarily be taken on board by opening appropriate communication channels, accordingly. This is to enable them to understand and accept the reasons for a short-term pain for a sustainable long-term gain. The tangible results of corrective measures should subsequently unfold to all concerned, with minor course corrections on-the-run, wherever necessary.

Domestic business – the pain points:

This is again another complex issue, which is often manifested through pressure on drug prices. The blame for such a situation, though originates from somewhere else, generally falls on the Government and the drug price regulator, for obvious reasons. It has a palpable boomerang effect, that is brought out by various research studies, and captured in consumers and the expert opinion, such as one that was published by the Washington Post on June 14, 2017 with the title, “The pharmaceutical industry puts profits above people.”

In the United States, where the drug pricing pressure is widely believed to have primarily originated from the escalating cost containment pressure of the Government and the key health care providers – triggered by a dangerous drug-pricing trend. Whereas in India, in addition to the latter that is related to non-schedule branded generic drugs, it is mostly related high out of pocket expenses on drugs, attempts to dodge various drug price regulations, and ignoring several ethical marketing practices related issues. The net outcome of all this is growing trust deficit on the pharma industry, in general.

Let me illustrate this point with a very contemporary example.  On May 18, 2017, Reuters reported, “India’s drug pricing regulator has demanded explanations from 65 domestic and global drug makers for selling new forms of essential diabetes and antibiotic drugs without its approval.” Interestingly, these companies reportedly include many big names, such as, Abbott Laboratories, Sanofi, Novartis and Indian firms such as Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and Lupin.

According to a circular of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) of May 17, 2017, the above companies have allegedly launched formulations by altering an essential drug formulation with strength/dosage other than as specified in the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) 2013 or combination with another drug not under price control, without even applying for price approval from NPPA as required. NPPA also doesn’t seem to be sure, whether such Fixed Dose Combinations (FDC) are rational or irrational and have the approval of the Central Drug Standard Control Organization (CDSCO).

If so, it’s indeed a sad development and a sorry state of affair, especially for those companies, which do some chest-thumping on ethics and compliance, often browbeating many Indian players, especially on USFDA related issues, besides pharma marketing practices.

As on date, Union Ministry of Health has banned several hundreds of such FDCs – on the ground of being irrational, launched without proper regulatory approval, lacking in therapeutic efficacy and safety profile, which may even cause harm to patients. March 11, 2016 notification of CDSCO banned 296 irrational FDCs.

However, many pharma players have succeeded in obtaining stay orders against almost all such regulatory bans from various High Courts. Nevertheless, the good news is, from July 2017, the Supreme Court is expected to hear all these cases, collectively. There could be another possible downturn in the market, if the Government wins the case.

Overcoming the odds in domestic business:

In these specific areas, there doesn’t seem to be any other option left to satisfy the long-term interest of the investors, other than addressing the ethics, values and compliance issues of the company on the ground, head on. It doesn’t really matter, what is displayed on the subject in their respective websites. Thus, in this area too, there is a crying need for a well-structured and expert-guided corporate introspection and brainstorming process to disrupt the status quo from its very root.

The above process would help the pharma players to arrive at a set of actionable strategic plans to effectively address the ethics and compliance issues in all the pain points – regulatory, marketing or financial, in a meticulous and time-bound manner. Alongside, all the stakeholders, including the investors, to be taken on board through customized content and the engagement platforms, to put the companies back into the long-term growth trajectory.

In conclusion:

Investors are very important, but if they aren’t an integral part of the corporate management team, should not try to overwhelm the business management process, especially for any short term financial gain. Attributing such authority to investors, involves a challenging problem of accountability for action, as they can get in or out of their investments at any time they choose to do so.

However, it’s also one of the key responsibilities of the management to listen to them, seriously. Take them on board by appropriately explaining to them in every critical situation, the broad strategic direction that the company would follow in pursuit of excellence. Thereafter, demonstrable outcome of all management action against the top operational goals, should be placed before them at a periodic interval, on an ongoing basis.

This process, if carried out with absolute transparency, integrity and seriousness, could help the Indian pharma players getting enough breathing space from the investors, for making the right operational interventions, before it’s too late.

Earlier this year, stepping down of former CEO of GSK – Andrew Witty, was reported to be due to pressure from investors for below par sales and profit in the past three years, besides a few other reasons. Another recent report of June 15, 2017 on “rebel investors looking to remake the board of Mylan” would possibly reinforce this point, further.

Outside the pharma industry, such a situation is not uncommon now, even in India. Besides, what happened recently in Tata Sons,  the June 14, 2017 media headline highlighting “Infosys flags ‘activist shareholder’ as risk factor”, vindicates the same point, yet again.

Thus, managing pharma investors’ expectations through a process of continuous engagement with them, effectively, especially when the chips are down, as it is today, is so critical for the long-term success and sustainability of pharma business.  Maintaining the status quo any further, would possibly make a high-flying pharma player to experience the strong gravitational pull, uncontrolled, with its its serious but avoidable consequences.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

PE Investment In Pharma: The Changing Need Of Due Diligence

Posted on by
Reply

From an international perspective, a Bain & Company report of April 2016 highlighted setting a new healthcare M&A record in the year 2015. During this year the total deal value was over 2.5 times higher than the average annual deal value of the previous decade. The report also mentioned that the Asia-Pacific Region grew in the same year by about 40 percent, fuelled by a number of activities in India and China. 

Commenting on India, the Bain report specifically mentioned that during the year, the Private Equity (PE) investors prioritized their investments in the country, not just targeting the global demand for pharmaceuticals, but also based on rapid domestic demand growth.

More popular targets in India were tertiary care, specialty care and laboratories. This is vindicated by TPG’s investment of US$146 million for a minority stake in Manipal Health, which operates multi-specialty and teaching hospitals in the country. Similarly, The Carlyle Group made a minority investment in the pathology lab chain – Metropolis Healthcare. This trend is expected to continue in the coming years and would in all probability include pharma companies of various sizes, with high performance or with high future potential.

In this article, I shall focus only on generic pharma companies in India.

A changing need of due diligence:

Despite some major uncertainties in the generally thriving domestic generic pharma market, this sector has the potential and possibility to come under the radar of many PE investors during the coming years.

However, in this scenario, to embrace success with lucrative returns, I reckon, there is a changing need of due diligence to follow, before suitable pharma companies are appropriately targeted. Conventional pharma due diligence, however stringent it is, may not capture appropriately the high-impact, up and down sides of long term business sustainability for the desired return on investments.

The rationale:

Consideration of significant cost savings in the pharma value chain won’t be just enough, any longer, to tide over any unforeseen rapid downturn in many pharma company’s business performances in the country.

This is largely because, many pharma companies in India have been thriving, so far, taking full advantage of some major loopholes in the regulatory area, including clinical trial; ethical marketing strategy and practices; overall generic product portfolio selection; new generic product developments; besides many others.

The need of a changing format of pharma due diligence in India is largely prompted by this prevailing scenario, even in the midst of stellar success of some companies, and plenty of lush green shoots, as they appear to many. 

The process of tightening the loose knots has commenced:

All these loose knots are expected to be tightened by the governments, sooner or later. In fact, while watching the intent of the Government and from some of its recent actions, it appears that the process has just commenced. Public and judicial pressure in these areas would also increasingly mount, with several related and major Public Interest Litigations (PIL) still remaining pending before the Supreme Court of India.

A few examples in this critical area: 

Thus, for any successful PE investments, especially for relatively long term, alongside conventional areas of due diligence, several non-conventional, but high business impact areas, need to be effectively covered for the Indian generic pharma companies, in general. Following are just a few examples in this critical area:

  • Business practices that the promoters personally believe in and practice
  • Belief and practices of key company personnel
  • Quality of regulatory approval
  • Product portfolio scrutiny
  • Marketing demand generation process and its long-term sustainability
  • Ability to introduce high-tech formulations with differentiated value offerings
  • Ability to come out with cost-effective manufacturing processes
  • Are Independent Directors, if any, really ‘Independent’?

I shall now very briefly try to illustrate each of the above points.

I. Business practices that the promoters personally believe in:

A large number of successful generic pharma companies are directly or indirectly driven, or in all practical purposes managed, and in several cases even micromanaged by the company promoters. Many experts have opined, though a craftily worded handbook of ‘corporate governance’ may exist in many of these companies, on the ground, promoters’ thoughts, belief, ethical standards, business practices and work priorities may easily supersede all those. 

The practice of good governance on the ground, rigid compliance with all rules, laws and regulations may quite often go for a toss. The employees implementing promoter’s decisions, may try their level best to record everything perfectly and as required. Nevertheless, sometimes regulators do succeed to ferret out the fact, which leaves an adverse impact on the business, in multiple ways.

Recent reports of the US-FDA on ‘data fudging’ in the drug manufacturing process, product quality standards and also in Clinical Trials, would illustrate this point. According to a 2015 EY Report on data integrity, ‘Import Alerts issued against Indian plants in 2013 accounted for 49 percent of the total 43 imports alerts issued by the US FDA worldwide.’

In some successful generic pharma company’s repetition of such incidences has also been reported. In my view, for recurrence of ‘data fudging’, no promoter of the concerned companies can possibly wash his/her hands off, putting all the blame on concerned employees, and the system.

A situation like this necessitates personal due diligence for promoters. It will help ascertain the persons’ business integrity, alongside the company performance as a whole. Accordingly, the PE investors would be able to flag those critical soft areas, which are key determinants for long-term sustainability of any pharma generic business in the country. 

II. Belief and practices of key company personnel:

The findings of the above EY Report also suggest, while most of the generic pharma company professionals are aware of the current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) guidelines, more than 30 percent had still received ‘Inspectional Observations’ from the regulators in the last three years.

This fact calls for due diligence on another critical issue, and that is on the belief and practices of the key company personnel in the new product development, manufacturing, drug quality, marketing, supply chain management, and also covering their interaction with key regulatory and other Government personnel. These are soft issues, but with potential to make the whole business topsy-turvy, virtually overnight.

Conventional due diligence based on the company records may not always reflect the real situation within the organization.

III. Quality of regulatory approval: 

To illustrate this point, let me give the example of a launch of a ‘new drug’ in India. 

A ‘new drug’ has been defined in the Drugs and Cosmetics Acts in India, as any new drug substance which is being introduced for the first time in India, including any off-patent generic molecule, with the permission of only the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI). A ‘new drug’ shall continue to be considered as ‘new drug’ for a period of four years from the date of its first approval or its inclusion in the Indian Pharmacopoeia, whichever is earlier.

Thus, for even for any generic pharma product, be it a single ingredient or a ‘Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)’, if a marketing license is granted by any State Drug Controller, whatever may be the reason, despite the product being a licensed one, it will deem to be unauthorized as the DCGI’s approval was not obtained during the valid period of the 4 years, as per the Act.

Hence, a proper due diligence on the ‘quality of regulatory approval’ to detect presence of any such successful products in the product portfolio, would enable the PE investors in India to flag a possible risk of a future ban, inviting adverse business impact.

IV. Product portfolio scrutiny:

This scrutiny may not be restricted to some conventional areas, such as, to find out the ratio between the price control and decontrol products, leaving future scope to improve the margin. It may also focus on many other important India-specific areas.

One such area could even be the non-standard FDCs in the product portfolio. Some of these FDCs could also be approved by the state drug controllers earlier, scrupulously following the drug laws and rules. However, if the medical rationale of any of these successful products can’t be credibly established, following the global standards, the risk of a future ban of such products would loom large.

Another area could be the percentage of those products in the product portfolio, where the medical claims are anecdotal, and not based on scientific data, generated through credible clinical trials. 

One may draw a relevant example from the Nutraceutical product category. Although, these products are high margin and currently do not come under price control, the stringent regulatory demands for this category of products have already started coming. Strict conformance to the emerging regulatory requirements of both the DCGI of FSSAI may be cost intensive, squeeze the margin, could also pose a great challenge in the conventional demand generating process. I hasten to add that such decision would possibly be dictated by the time scale of PE investment, and the risk-appetite of the investors.                                                            

Yet another example prompts the need to check the quality of generic brands in the product portfolio. According to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India, some of these brands would merit to be categorized as drugs. In practice, the company concerned could well be surreptitiously classifying those as nutritional supplements, or Nutraceuticals, with the support of some State Drug Controllers and promoted accordingly, simultaneously avoiding any risk of drug price control. 

V. Marketing demand generation process and long-term sustainability:

This assumes critical importance in the pharma industry, especially when the Government is mulling to give the current voluntary ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ legal teeth, by making it mandatory for all. As I understand, besides other penal action, in serious cases of gross violations of the code, even the marketing license of the offender may get suspended, or cancelled. Thus, compliance to UCPMP would be critical to business performance. Thus, the level of compliance of a company in this regard could well be a part of the due diligence process of the PE investors.

It is also important to understand, whether the pharma generic target asset is predominantly buying doctors’ prescriptions through various dubious means to increase its brand off-takes, or the prescription demand generation process primarily stands on robust pillars of a differentiated value delivery system. The latter is believed to be more desirable for sustainable long term business success.

It is also important to understand, whether the strategic marketing process adopted by the company can withstand robust ethical, legal and regulatory scrutiny, or it is just an outward impressive looking structure, unknowingly built as ‘House of Cards, waiting to be collapsed anytime, sooner or later.

I would now give just a couple of other examples in this area, out of so many – say, a health product, which has been categorized as a drug by the drug authority, is freely advertised in the media, at times even with top celebrity endorsements. This strategy is short term, may eventually not fly, and is certainly not sustainable in the longer term, avoiding regulatory scrutiny. Another example, big brands of Nutraceuticals are being promoted with off-label strong therapeutic claims, and have become immensely successful because of that reason.

VI. Ability to introduce formulations with high-tech value offerings:

India is basically a branded generic market with huge brand proliferations of each molecule, or their FDCs. Just like any other brand, for business success and to overcome the pricing barrier, differentiated value offerings are essential for long term success of any branded generic too. This differentiation may be both tangible and intangible. However, if such differentiation is based on high-technology platforms, it could provide a cutting edge to effectively fight any cut throat competition. Thus, appropriate due diligence to ascertain the robustness of the ability to introduce high-tech formulations with differentiated value offerings, would be an added advantage.

VII. Ability to come out with cost-effective manufacturing processes: 

This is not much new. Many PE investors would possibly look at it, in any case. Just like formulations, ascertaining similar ability to come out with cost-effective manufacturing processes to improve margin would also be very useful, especially for long term investments.

VIII. Are Independent Directors, if any, really ‘Independent’?

If the target company has ‘Independent Directors’ in its Board, as a mandatory legal requirement or even otherwise, there is a need to dispassionately evaluate how independent these directors are, and what value they have added to the company or capable of providing in the future, according to their legal status in the Board.

True independence, given to the high caliber ‘Independent Directors’ in the Board of promoter driven pharma companies, could usher in a catalytic change in the overall business environment of the company. It would, consequently, bring in a breath of fresh air in the organization with their independent thoughts, strategic inputs and involvement in the key peoples’ decisions.

As it is much known, that a large number of ‘Independent Directors’ are primarily hand-picked, based on their unqualified support to the Indian promoters. Many board resolutions, in various critical business impact areas, are passed as desired by the powerful promoters, may be for short term interest and fire fighting. In that process, what is right for the organization for sustainability of business performance, and in the long term interest of all the company stakeholders, may get sacrificed.

When this happens in any target company, mainly for short term business success, taking advantage of regulatory loopholes and inherent weaknesses in the system, a flag needs to be raised by the PE investors for further detailed analysis in the concerned areas.

Conclusion:

Going forward, it appears to me that PE investors would continue to look for attractive pharma investment opportunities in India, though with increasing level of competition. These investors would include both global and local PE firms. Some of them may like to stay invested for longer terms with lesser regulatory and other associated risks and a modest return, unlike a few other high risk takers, sniffing for commensurate windfall returns. 

In India – today’s land of seemingly unparalleled economic opportunities, the PE players should also take into consideration the prevailing complexities of the domestic pharma industry seriously and try to analyze the same properly, for appropriate target asset identification. Many successful local generic players may outwardly project sophisticated, and high standard of business practices. However, these need to be ascertained only through a structured format of India-specific due diligence process.

Corporate governance processes, regulatory compliance, marketing practices and financial reporting systems of many of these companies, may not pass the acid test of stringent expert scrutiny, for long term sustainability of business.

This mainly because, a number of generic pharma companies in India have been thriving, taking full advantage of some major loopholes in the regulatory area, marketing practices, overall product portfolio selection and new generic product development areas, besides many others.

These successful domestic drug companies have indeed the potential and overall attractiveness to come under the radar of many PE investors, who, in turn, should also realize that all the loose knots, fully being exploited by many such companies, are expected to be tightened by the governments, sooner or later.

Keeping this possibility in perspective, to embrace success with lucrative returns, I reckon, there is a changing need of due diligence to follow by the PE investors for right valuation, and much before any pharma generic company is identified by them.

That done, the Indian generic pharma market could soon emerge as an Eldorado, especially for those PE investors, who are looking for a relatively long term attractive return on investments.

By: Tapan J. Ray 

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

 

No More Payment for Prescriptions: Pharma at A Crossroads?

Posted on by
Reply
  • “ARE there different and more effective ways of operating than perhaps the ways we as an industry have been operating over the last 30, 40 years?”
  • “TRY and make sure we stay in step with how the world is changing.”

Those are some introspective outlooks of Sir Andrew Witty – the Chief Executive of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) related to much contentious pharmaceutical prescription generation processes now being practiced by the drug industry in general, across the world.

The ‘Grand Strategy’ to effectively address these issues, in all probability, was still on the drawing board, when Sir Andrew reportedly announced on December 16, 2013 that GSK:

  • Will no longer pay healthcare professionals to speak on its behalf about its products or the diseases they treat to audiences who can prescribe or influence prescribing.
  • Will stop tying compensation of sales representatives to number of prescriptions the doctors write.
  • Will stop providing financial support to doctors to attend medical conferences.

These iconoclastic intents, apparently moulded in the cast of ethics and values and quite possibly an outcome of various unpleasant experiences, including in China, is expected to take shape worldwide by 2016, as the report indicates.

Acknowledgment of unbefitting global practices:

Reacting to this announcement, some renowned experts, as quoted in the above report, said, “It’s a modest acknowledgment of the fact that learning from a doctor who is paid by a drug company to give a talk about its products isn’t the best way for doctors to learn about those products.”

The world envisages a refreshing change:

A December 11 article in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) stated that there exists a serious financial ‘Conflict of Interest (COI)’ in the relationship between many Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) and the drug and medical device industries spanning across a wide range of activities, including:

  • Promotional speakers
  • Industry-funded ‘Continuing Medical Education (CME)’ programs
  • Free access of sales representatives to its faculty, trainees and staff
  • The composition of purchasing and formulary committees

Such types of relationships between doctors and the pharmaceutical companies across the world, including in India, as studies revealed, have been custom crafted with the sole purpose of influencing prescription behavior of doctors towards more profitable costlier drugs, many of which offer no superior value as compared to already available cheaper generic alternatives.

Cracking the nexus is imperative:

Yet another report says, “Ghost-writing scandals, retracted journal papers, off-label marketing settlements, and a few high-profile faculty dust-ups triggered new restrictions at some schools.”

To address this pressing issue of COI, cracking the Doctor-Industry alleged nexus, which is adversely impacting the patients’ health interest, is absolutely imperative. An expert task force convened by the ‘Pew Charitable Trusts’ in 2012, made recommendations in 15 areas to protect the integrity of medical education/training and the practice of medicine within AMCs.

Some of those key recommendations involving relationships of medical profession with pharmaceutical companies are as follows:

  • No gifts or meals of any value
  • Disclosure of all industry relationships to institutions
  • No industry funded speaking engagement
  • No industry supported Continuing Medical Education (CME)
  • No participation at industry-sponsored lectures and promotional or educational events
  • No meeting with pharmaceutical sales representative
  • No industry-supported clinical fellowships
  • No ghostwriting and honorary authorship
  • No ‘Consulting Relationship’ for product marketing purpose

The above report also comments, “if medical schools follow new advice from a Pew Charitable Trusts task force, ‘No Reps Allowed’ signs will soon be on the door of every academic medical center in the United States.”

MNC pharma associations showcase voluntary ‘Codes of Marketing Practices’: 

Most of the global pharma associations have and showcase self-regulating ‘Codes of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices’. However, the above GSK decision and hefty fines that are being levied to many large global companies almost regularly in different countries for marketing ‘malpractices’, prompt a specific question: Do these well-hyped ‘Codes’ really work on the ground or are merely expressions of good intent captured in attractive templates and released in the cyberspace for image building?

Global status overview:

In this context an updated article of December 11, 2013 states that Medical Faculty, Department Chairs and Deans continue to sit on the Board of Directors of many drug companies. At the same time, many pharma players support programs of various medical schools and teaching hospitals through financial grants.  Company sales representatives also enjoy free access to hospital doctors to promote their products.

In most states of the United States, doctors are required to take accredited CMEs. The pharmaceutical industry provides a substantial part of billions of dollars that are spent on the CME annually, using this support as marketing tools. This practice is rampant even in India.

The above article also highlights incidences of lawsuits related to ‘monetary persuasion’ offered to doctors. In one such incidence, two patients reportedly fitted with faulty hips manufactured by Stryker Orthopedics discovered that the manufacturer paid their surgeon between US$ 225,000 and US$ 250,000 for “consultation services,” and between US$ 25,000 and US$ 50,000 for other services.

However, since August 2013, ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the United States demands full disclosure of gifts and payments made to doctors by the pharma players and allied businesses. Effective March 31, 2014, all companies must report these details to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), or else would face punitive fines as high as US$1 million per year. CMS would publish records of these payments to a public website by September 31, 2014. India needs to take a lesson from this Act to help upholding ethics and values in the healthcare system of the country.

Overview of status in India:

As reported by both International and National media, similar situation prevails in India too.

Keeping such ongoing practices in mind and coming under intense media pressure, the Medical Council of India (MCI) on December 10, 2009 amended the “Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations 2002″ for the medical profession of India. The notification specified stricter regulations for doctors in areas, among others, gifts, travel facilities/ hospitality, including Continuing Medical Education (CME), cash or monetary grants, medical research, maintaining professional Autonomy, affiliation and endorsement in their relationship with the ‘pharmaceutical and allied health sector industry’.

However, inability of the Indian regulator to get these guidelines effectively implemented and monitored, has drawn sharp flak from other stakeholders, as many third party private vendors are reportedly coming up as buffers between the industry and the physicians to facilitate the ongoing illegal financial transactions, hoodwinking the entire purpose, blatantly.

Moreover, it is difficult to fathom, why even four years down the line, the Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India is yet to implement its much hyped ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ for the entire pharmaceutical industry in India. 

Learning from other self-regulatory ‘Codes of Pharma Marketing Practices’, in my view, a law like, ‘Physician Payment Sunshine Act’ of the United States, demanding public disclosure of gifts and all other payments made to doctors by the pharma players and allied businesses, would be much desirable and more meaningful in India.

Conclusion:

Research studies do highlight that young medical graduates passing out from institutions enforcing gift bans and following other practices, as mentioned above, are less likely to prescribe expensive brands having effective cheaper alternatives.

The decision of GSK of not making payments to any doctor, either for participating or speaking in seminars/conferences, to influence prescription decision in favor of its brands is indeed bold and laudable. This enunciation, if implemented in letter and spirit, could trigger a paradigm shift in the the prescription demand generation process for pharmaceuticals brands.

However, this pragmatic vow may fall short of stemming the rot in other critical areas of pharma business. One such recent example is reported clinical data fabrication in a large Japanese study for Diovan (Valsatran) of Novartis AG. Had patient records been used in their entirety, the Kyoto Heart Study paper, as the report indicates, would have had a different conclusion.

That said, if all in the drug industry, at least, ‘walk the line’ as is being demarcated   by GSK, a fascinating cerebral marketing warfare to gain top of mind brand recall of the target doctors through well strategized value delivery systems would ultimately prevail, separating men from the boys.

Thus, the moot point to ponder now:

Would other pharma players too jettison the decades old unethical practices of ‘paying to doctors for prescriptions’, directly or indirectly, just for the heck of maintaing ethics, values and upholding patients’ interest?

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

 

Pharma Innovation Absolutely Critical: But NOT Shorn from Ethics, Propriety, Compliance and Values

Posted on by
Reply

Significant value added innovation is the bedrock of progress of the pharmaceutical industry and is essential for the patients. This is a hard fact.

However, this current buzzword – ‘innovation’ can in no way be shorn from soft business necessities like, ethics, propriety, compliance and values… not just for longer term sustainability of business, but more in the larger interest of patients and patient groups.

Most importantly, ‘ethics, propriety, compliance and values’ are not meant for mere display  in the corporate websites like, any other business showpieces. These should neither be leveraged to create a false positive impression in the minds of the stakeholders with frequent PR blitzkriegs.

The creators of these soft ‘X factors’ are now being increasingly hauled up for gross violations of the same by the Governments in various parts of the world .These are not just legal issues. The net impact of all such acts goes much beyond.

In this article, I shall deliberate on these continuing and annoying issues both in global and local perspectives, quoting relevant examples at random.

The sole purpose of my argument is to drive home that all such repeated gross violations, as reported in the media, go against patients’ interests, directly or indirectly. None of these incidents, in any way, can be negated with stories of great innovations or with any other make of craftily designed shields.

Under increasing scrutiny in the developed world:

Ethics, propriety and business value standards of big pharma, besides various types of legal compliance, are coming under increasing stakeholders’ scrutiny, especially in the developed markets of the world.

Very frequently media reports from across the world, highlight serous indictments of the Government and even judiciary for bribery, corrupt business practices and other unbecoming conduct, aimed at the the global mascot for healthcare.

It is indeed flabbergasting to note that more and more corporates, with all guns blazing at the same time, publicize with equal zest various initiatives being taken by them to uphold high ethical standards and business practices, if not propriety, as the juggernaut keeps on moving forward, unabated.

The scope of ‘ethics and propriety’:

The scope of ‘ethical business conducts, propriety and value standards’ of a company usually encompasses the following, among many others:

  • The employees, suppliers, customers and other stakeholders
  • Caring for the society and environment
  • Fiduciary responsibilities
  • Business and marketing practices
  • R&D activities, including clinical trials
  • Corporate Governance
  • Corporate espionage

That said, such scope should not be restricted to the top management, but must be allowed to percolate downwards in a structured manner, looking beyond the legal and regulatory boundaries.

Statistics of compliance to ‘codes of business ethics and corporate values’ are important to know, but the qualitative change in the ethics and value standards of an organization should always be the most important goal to drive any corporation and the pharmaceutical sector is no exception.

‘Business Ethics and Values’ in the globalized economy:

Globalization of business makes the process of formulating the ‘codes of ethics and values’ indeed very challenging for many organizations in many ways. This is mainly because, the cultural differences at times create a conflict on ethics and values involving different countries.

For this purpose, many business organizations prefer to interact with the cultural and religious leaders in the foreign countries, mainly to ascertain what really drives culturally diverse people to act in certain ways.

With the wealth of knowledge of the local customs and people, the cultural and religious leaders can help an organization to unify the code of ethics and values of the globalized business.

Such leaders can also help identifying the ‘common meeting ground of minds’ from a specific country perspective, after carefully assessing the cultural differences, which are difficult to resolve in the near term.

The ‘common meeting ground of minds’ within a given society, thus worked out, could form the bedrock to initiate further steps to strengthen global business standards of ethics and values of an organization.

OECD with USA started early enacting ‘Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)’: 

To prevent bribery and corrupt practices, especially in a foreign land, in 1997, along with 33 other countries belonging to the ‘Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’, the United States Congress enacted a law against the bribery of foreign officials, which is known as ‘Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)’.

This Act marked the early beginnings of ethical compliance program in the United States and disallows the US companies from paying, offering to pay or authorizing to pay money or anything of value either directly or through third parties or middlemen. FCPA currently has significant impact on the way American companies are required to run their business, especially in the foreign land.

A dichotomy exists with ‘Grease Payment’:

OECD classified ‘Grease payment’ as “facilitating one, if it is paid to government employees to speed up an administrative process where the outcome is already pre-determined.”

In the FCPA of the US, ‘Grease Payment’, has been defined as “a payment to a foreign official, political party or party official for ‘routine governmental action,’ such as processing papers, issuing permits, and other actions of an official, in order to expedite performance of duties of non-discretionary nature, i.e., which they are already bound to perform. The payment is not intended to influence the outcome of the official’s action, only its timing.”

Many observers opine, ‘Grease Payments’ is an absolute dichotomy to the overall US policy for ethical standards and against corruption.

Currently besides US, only Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea are the countries that permit ‘Grease payments’.

Notwithstanding, the governments of the US and four other countries allow companies to keep doing business without undue delay by making ‘Grease Payments’ to the lower government officials, such payments are considered illegal in most other countries, in which they are paid, including India.

In India such a business practice is viewed as bribery, which is not only perceived as unethical and immoral, but also a criminal offense under the law of the land. Even otherwise, right or wrong, ‘Grease Payments’ are viewed by a vast majority of the population as a morally questionable standard of ‘business conduct’.

Many companies are setting-up the ethical business standards globally:

While visiting the website of especially the large global and local companies, one finds that all these companies, barring a very few exceptions, have already put in place a comprehensive ‘code of business ethics and values’. Some of these companies have also put in place dedicated code compliance officers across the globe.

‘Practice as you preach’:

Despite all these commendable initiatives towards establishing corporate codes of business ethics and values, the moot question that keeps haunting many times and again: “Do all these companies ‘practice what they preach’ in real life?”

Instances are too many for breach in ethics, propriety and value standards:

The media is now increasingly reporting such instances of violations both locally and globally.

Some Indian examples: (At random, not in a chronological order)

Criminal drug regulatory manipulation:

One of India’s top pharma players reportedly will pay a record fine of US$ 500 million in the US for lying to officials and selling badly made generic drugs.

The company has pleaded guilty to improper manufacturing, storing and testing of drugs, closing a year long civil and criminal investigation into the matter.

Compensation for deaths related to Clinical Trials not paid:

In 2011 the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) reportedly summoned nine pharma companies on June 6 to question them on the amount of compensation they have decided to pay the ‘victims of their clinical trials’, which is a mandatory part of any clinical trial, or else all other trials of these nine companies going on at that time or yet to start, will not be allowed.

Clinical Trial is another area of pharmaceutical business, especially in the Indian context, where more often than not, issues related to ethics and values are being raised. In an article titled, ‘Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns’ published by the World Health Organization (WHO) following observations have been made:

“The latest developments in India reflect a concerted effort on the part of the global public health community to push clinical trials issues to the fore in the wake of several high-profile cases in which pharmaceutical companies were shown to be withholding information from regulators.”

Alleged marketing malpractices:

In 2010, the Parliamentary Standing committee on Health reportedly expressed concern that the “evil practice” of inducement of doctors by the pharma players continues.

Congress MP Jyoti Mirdha sent a bunch of photocopies of air tickets to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to claim that doctors and their families were ‘beating the scorching Indian summer’ with a trip to England and Scotland, courtesy a pharmaceutical company.

30 family members of 11 doctors from all over the country reportedly enjoyed the hospitality of the concerned company.

Department of Pharmaceuticals reportedly roped in the Revenue Department under Finance Ministry to work out methods to link the money trail to offending companies.

Some global examples: (At random, not in a chronological order)

United States Government sues a Swiss pharma major for alleged multi-million dollar kickbacks:

The United States Government very recently reportedly announced its second civil fraud lawsuit against a Swiss drug major accusing the company of paying multimillion-dollar kickbacks to doctors in exchange for prescribing its drugs.

Fraud fines: 

Two largest drug makers of the world reportedly paid US$ 8 billion in fraud fines for repeatedly defrauding Medicare and Medicaid in the USA over the past decade.

Denigrating generics:

Another global pharma major reportedly has been recently fined US$ 52.8 million for denigrating generic copies.

Drug overcharging: 

Another global drug major reportedly stirred an ethics scandal and paid US$ 499 million towards overcharging the US government for medicines.

Bribing doctors:

  • A top global pharma player reportedly paid total US$ 60.2 million to settle a federal investigation on alleged bribing overseas doctors and other health officials to prescribe medicines. 
  • Another European pharma group reportedly was fined US$ 3bn after admitting bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children.

 Concealment of important facts:

A judge in USA reportedly ordered a large pharma company to pay more than $1.2 billion in fines after a jury found that the company had minimized or concealed the dangers associated with an antipsychotic drug.

Off-label marketing:

  • A Swiss pharma major reportedly agreed to pay US$ 422.5 million to resolve an investigation into alleged off-label promotion of a drug, as well as civil allegations relating to five other products.
  • The U.S. Justice Department reportedly hit an American drug major with a US$ 322 million penalty for illegally promoting a drug before it received approval by the Food and Drug Administration for that condition.

Other illegal marketing practices:

Yet another European pharma group was reportedly fined USD 34 million by a court in the United States for illegal marketing practices for its medicine.

‘Illegal’ Clinical Trials: 

It was revealed on May 17, 2013 that global pharmaceutical companies reportedly paid millions of pounds to former communist East Germany to use more that 50,000 patients in state-run hospitals as unwitting guinea pigs for drug tests in which several people died.

All these are some random examples of alleged malpractices associated with ‘ethics, propriety, compliance and values’ in the pharma world, both local and global.

Middle and lower management becomes the ‘fall guy’: 

It is interesting to note that whenever, such incidents take place, the fingers are usually pointed towards the middle or lower management cadre of the corporations concerned for violations and non-compliance.

Corporate or top management ownership of such seemingly deplorable incidents still remains confined within a ‘black box’ and probably a distant reality.

Public perception is not encouraging:

In the pharmaceutical sector all over the world, many business practices have still remained very contentious, despite many well-publicized attempts of self-regulation by the industry. The flow of complaints for alleged unethical business practices have not slowed down either, across the world, even after so many years of self-regulation, penalty and severe indictments.

Government apathy in India:

Nearer home, the Government apathy, despite being pressured by the respective Parliamentary Committees and sometimes including judiciary in repose to Public Interest Litigations (PIL), has indeed been appalling, thus far.

The Department of Pharmaceuticals of the Government of India has already circulated a draft ‘Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP)’ for stakeholders to comment on it. The final UCPMP, when it comes into force, if not implemented by the pharmaceutical players in its ‘letter and spirit’, may attract government’s ire in form of strong doses of regulatory measures. However, the moot question remains, will the UCPMP come at all?

Similar issues are there in drug regulatory areas falling under the Ministry of Health, especially in the clinical trial area. In this matter, very fortunately Supreme Court has intervened against a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Thus, one can expect to witness some tangible steps being taken in this area, sooner than later.

Walking the talk:

The need to formulate and more importantly effectively implement ‘Codes of Business Ethics & Values’ should gain increasing relevance in the globalized business environment, including in India.

It appears from the media reports, many companies across the world are increasingly resorting to ‘unethical behavior, impropriety and business malpractices’ due to intense pressure for business performance, as demanded primarily by the stock markets.

There is no global consensus, as yet, on what is ethically and morally acceptable ‘Business Ethics and Values’ across the world. However, even if these are implemented in a country-specific way, the most challenging obstacle to overcome by the corporates would still remain ‘walking the talk’ and owning responsibility at the top.

Conclusion:

Pharmaceutical innovation will continue to remain the launch pad for the industry growth in the battle against diseases of all types, forms and severity. However, that alone should in no way deserve to receive encouragement from any corner shorn from Ethics, Propriety, Compliance and Values.

Balancing pharmaceutical innovation with Ethics, Propriety, Compliance and Values, I reckon, will in turn help striking a right balance, to a considerable extent, between pharmaceutical innovation and public health interest for everyones’ satisfaction, mostly the patients.

Being equipped with the wherewithal to bring new drugs for the global population and being the fundamental source of growth momentum for the generic drug industry of the world, the innovator companies are expected to lead by setting examples in this area too. After all, as the saying goes:

“Caesar’s wife ought to be above suspicion. ‥Caesar himself ought to be so too”.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

 

 

MCI asks Doctors to Prescribe Medicines in Generic Names

Posted on by
Reply

Last week, on January 21, 2013, in a circular addressed to the Dean/Principals of all the Medical Colleges, Director of all the hospitals and Presidents of all the State Medical Councils, the Medical Council of India (MCI) called upon the doctors practicing medicine to prescribe Drugs with Generic names, as far as possible.

The MCI circular reinforced that all Registered Medical Practitioners under the Indian  Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 will comply with it without fail. At the same time, wide publicity of this regulation be given and necessary steps be taken to ensure observance of this provision in its letter and spirit.

PSC also recommended it:

Prior to this circular, Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) for Health and Family Welfare in its recommendation to the ‘Rajya Sabha’ of the Indian Parliament on August 4, 2010, also recommended prescription of medicines by their generic names.

The basic premises:

All these recommendations are reportedly based on the basic premises that high ‘Sales and Marketing’ costs of branded generic drugs in India can be significantly reduced, if prescription in generic names are encouraged, to make medicines available to patients at cheaper and much affordable prices.

‘Sales and Marketing’ expenses of ‘Branded’ drugs:

According to a recent report in BMJ every dollar that the pharmaceutical companies spend on “basic research,” US$ 19 goes toward promotion and marketing.

Another recent report from Forbes India titled “Will Pharma Companies Have to Stop ‘Gifting’ Doctors?“ states as follows:

“The budget that pharma companies have for freebies is huge. According to one estimate, the top 20 drug makers in India spend about $600 million a year on only freebies for doctors. It is still a paltry sum compared to the US, where drug makers spend $58 billion or more annually on marketing drugs, including freebies for doctors.

While the practice of giving gifts to doctors is rampant internationally, several sources told Forbes India that in India it borders on petty corruption. Doctors often refuse to write prescriptions unless they are offered at least Rs 50,000 in cash every time a new drug needs to be prescribed.” 

The prescribers’ ‘diplomatic’ stand:

It is interesting to note that some doctors reportedly are of the view that:

“For the benefit of patients and to get the best possible results, highest quality drugs with best possible pharmacological properties should be used by all doctors. If the quality of generic drugs is up to high standards, doctors should prescribe generic medicines.”

This comment needs to be taken considering that it has been made in response to the above MCI circular by a doctor. However, I reckon, in the real world such intent, as reflected in various independent retail audit reports, is hardly seen getting translated into reality, at least not just yet.

Ongoing debate on the quality issue with generic medicines:

Many opine that there could be a huge quality issue with generic medicines, which could make such drugs unsafe for the patients.

In response, other school of thought leaders often raise, among many others, the following questions:

  1. Are all generic medicines of dubious quality and branded generics are of good quality?
  2. If quality parameters can be doubted for both in many cases, why then raise this issue only in context of generic medicines?
  3. If the quality issues are not much with the larger companies and are restricted to only smaller companies, why then some branded generic drugs of smaller companies prescribed so much by the doctors?
  4. Currently many large companies market the same drugs both as generics and also as branded generics, why then the branded generic versions sell more than their generic equivalents, though manufactured by the same large companies?
  5. Why are the generic medicines available at ‘Jan Aushadhi’ outlets (though small in number) cost a fraction of their branded generic equivalents?
  6. Why do the doctors also not show much interest in prescribing generic medicines as of date?
  7. Why not those who argue that phonetically similar or wrong reading of generic names at the chemist outlets may cause health safety hazard to the patients, also realize that many already existing phonetically similar brand names in totally different therapy areas may cause similar hazards too?
  8. How does a doctor while prescribing a branded generic or generic medicine decide which ones are of good quality and which others are not?

A recent study:

As reported by the US FDA, ‘A recent study evaluated the results of 38 published clinical trials that compared cardiovascular generic drugs to their brand-name counterparts. There was no evidence that brand-name heart drugs worked any better than generic heart drugs. [Kesselheim et al. Clinical equivalence of generic and brand name drugs used in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA.  2008; 300(21) 2514-2526]‘.

Similar studies are also required in India to resolve much hyped ‘quality issue’ for generic medicines.

Some countries are taking similar steps: 

Just to cite an example, as reported by ‘The Guardian” on August 23, 2011, the Spanish government enacted a law compelling the doctors of Spain to prescribe generic drugs rather than more expensive patented and branded pharmaceuticals, wherever available. This move is expected to help the Spanish government to save €2.4 billion (£2.1billion) a year, as in Spain the drugs are partly reimbursed by the government.

As a result, the doctors in Spain will now have to prescribe only in the generic or chemical names of the respective drugs. Consequently the pharmacies will be obliged to dispense ‘the cheapest available versions of drugs, which will frequently mean not the better-known brand names sold by the big drugs firms’.

Interestingly, the above point, though considered as a positive fall-out in Spain, is reportedly taken negatively in India with the oft repeated argument, ‘India is different’.

Prescriptions for generic medicines were a record high in America in 2010:

As per published reports, last year i.e. in 2010, generic medicines accounted for more than 78 percent of the total prescriptions dispensed by retail chemists and long-term care facilities in the US. This is a record high and is four percentage points more than what it was in 2009 and came up from 63% as recorded in 2006.

This vindicates that prescription in generic names is encouraged in the US too for various reasons.

Concerns over pharmaceutical marketing malpractices in India:  

Ethical concerns on significant expenditure towards alleged sales and marketing malpractices since quite some time has further strengthened the demand for prescriptions only in the generic name of a drug.

Frequent reports by Indian media have already triggered a raging debate in the country on the subject, involving even the Government and also the Parliament. It has been reported that a related case is now pending with the Supreme Court for hearing in not too distant future.

In 2010, “The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health’ expressed its deep concern that ‘the evil practice’ of inducement of doctors continued because the Medical Council of India (MCI) has no jurisdiction over the pharma industry and it could not enforce the code of ethics on it.”

It was widely reported that the letter of a Member of Parliament, Dr. Jyoti Mirdha to the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, attaching a bunch of photocopies of the air tickets claiming, “Doctors and their families were beating the scorching Indian summer with a trip to England and Scotland, courtesy a pharmaceutical company”, compelled the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to initiate inquiry and action on the subject.

The letter had claimed that as many as 30 family members of 11 doctors from all over India enjoyed the hospitality of the said pharmaceutical company.

In addition Dr. Mirdha reportedly wrote to the PMO stating, “The malpractice did not come to an end because while medical profession (recipients of incentives) is subjected to a mandatory code, there is no corresponding obligation on the part of the healthcare industry (givers of incentives). Result: Ingenious methods have been found to flout the code.”

The report also indicated that the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) is trying to involve the Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance to explore the possibilities in devising methods to link the money trail to offending companies and deny the tax incentives.

Incidences of such alleged malpractices related to financial relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and the medical profession are unfolding reasonably faster now. All these issues are getting increasingly dragged into the public debate where government can no longer play the role of a mere bystander.

Taking the first step closer to that direction, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), which is a part of Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance, has now decided to disallow expenses on all ‘freebies’ to Doctors by the Pharmaceutical Companies in India.

A circular dated August 1, 2012 of the CBDT that the any expenses incurred by the pharmaceutical companies on gifts and other ‘freebies’ given to the doctors will no longer be allowed as business expenses. 

The response in favor of ‘Branded Generics’:

The proponents of ‘Branded Generics’ argue that the brand name is built on various differential value parameters to create a proper position of the brand in the minds of healthcare professionals as well as the patients. Thus, brand names offer a specific identity to generic drugs and is of high importance for both the doctors and the patients. 

The areas of complexity:

Those who favor branded generics also highlight, among others, the following three areas of complexity:

1. In India, over 50% medicines prescribed by the physicians are for Fixed Dose Combinations (FDCs), spanning across almost all therapeutic categories. Thus, it could be difficult for doctors to prescribe such medicines in generic names and might equally be difficult for the chemists to dispense such prescriptions.

They also argue that in case of any mistake of dispensing the wrong drug by the chemist inadvertently, the patients could face serious consequences.

2. Currently doctors use brand names to differentiate one formulation from the others. Different brands of even single ingredient medicines may have inherent differences in their formulations like, in the drug delivery systems (controlled/sustained release), kind of coatings allowing dissolution in different parts of alimentary canal, dispersible or non-dispersible tablets, chewable or non-chewable tablets etc. Since doctors are best aware of their patients’ conditions, they may wish to prescribe a specific type of formulation based on specific conditions of the patients, which may not be possible by prescribing only in generic names.

3. Patients also could face other difficulties due to generic prescribing. As is known, different brands of FDCs may have different proportions of same active ingredients. If chemists do not know or have the exact combination prescribed by the doctor in their shops, they would possibly substitute with a different combination of same drugs, which could well be less effective or even harmful to the patients.

The common perception:

The entire issue arises out of the key factor that the patients do not have any say on the use/purchase of a brand/brands that a doctor will prescribe.

It is generally believed by many that doctors predominantly prescribe mostly those brands, which are promoted to them by the pharmaceutical companies in various questionable ways, as reported above.

Thus, in today’s world and particularly in India, the degree of commercialization of the noble healthcare services, as often reported by the media, has reached a new high, sacrificing the ethics and etiquette both in the medical and also in the pharmaceutical sales and marketing practices at the altar of greed and conspicuous consumption.

Conclusion:

The recent MCI circular to doctors calling upon them to prescribe medicines in the generic names making them more affordable to patients, may be an important step towards a better future.

This assumes even greater importance when medicines constitute over 70 percent of the total treatment cost, especially for domiciliary treatment, and around 80 percent of total healthcare expenses is ‘out of pocket’ in our country.

However, the moot point is, the need of the hour calls for a total change in the mindset of all concerned. The importance of genuine care for the societal needs, while being in pursuit of professional excellence, in tandem, should ideally be demonstrated through voluntary measures by the concerned players in this area, leaving enforcement of stringent regulations as a last resort by the Government.

That said, while generic drugs per se are in no way bad for the patients, a careful analysis of all possible risk factors against expected benefits, especially for FDCs and different drug delivery formulations, will be important in the Indian perspective. Without effectively addressing the above issues, if prescriptions in generic names are made mandatory for all drugs, it could possibly be counter productive jeopardizing patients’ safety and interest.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.